Editorial: Arena talks a fine idea

Our city’s relationship with the Calgary Flames is important, so it’s encouraging that a new committee has been formed to explore a replacement for the Scotiabank Saddledome.

“We’ve sent a strong signal today that says we have a strong contingent on council that wants to have a conversation,” said Coun. Jeff Davison, who helped guide the plan to restart arena negotiations with “new faces” around the table.

“I hope that today’s vote signals that we’re ready to talk and hope they respond,” he said Monday after council voted 12-1 to create the committee.

Negotiations between city hall and the team’s owners became almost acrimonious at times because of hardened positions. City council’s decision to reset talks is welcomed, as is the recognition that the tone has to be different moving forward.

Coun. Sean Chu has cited the strong personalities of Mayor Naheed Nenshi and Flames CEO Ken King for the lack of earlier progress.

“You have two strong persons butting heads. I don’t think much can be done,” said Chu.

“I think the difference is that this time, it will be different people doing it. Hopefully, we’ll take the personality out of the equation.”

It’s been more than two years since the Flames unveiled plans for the $890-million CalgaryNEXT megaproject. The combined hockey arena, covered football stadium and multi-sport field house was part of an ambitious vision to remake the west side of downtown.

More than a year ago, the city rekindled speculation of building a new arena with its so-called Plan B — the development of a two-block site in Victoria Park that is currently occupied by parking lots and roadways near the existing Saddledome.

Any negotiations are certain to come down to money, as most decisions inevitably do. The city has proposed sharing the cost of the construction of a $555-million facility, with the public paying a third, the hockey club contributing a third and a ticket surcharge making up a third.

King bristled at the offer, saying the city’s contribution would be paid back by the team in taxes, an equity share or some other mechanism. The proposed ticket surcharge would come from the Flames’ operations, he added, and should be considered revenue from the team.

Engaging in a fresh, productive conversation with the Flames organization is a fine idea. Any deal has to make sense for both parties, and it’s to be hoped the passage of time has given those involved in the decision the opportunity to reflect on what’s acceptable and what isn’t.

This Week's Flyers

Comments

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.

Connect With Us

Submit A Letter

Make sure to include your full name, phone number and address. Only your name will appear in the newspaper or on our website.